IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/masjnl/v4y2010i4p29.html

Pharmacists’ preferences and choice of essential drugs: An application of the discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Xuan Yu
  • Cheng Li
  • Jin Zhang
  • Xianzhi Zhang
  • Min Yu

Abstract

Pharmacists take an important role in prescribing drugs and have great influence on the implementation of national drug policies. The aim of this article is to analyze the preferences and choice of essential drugs among pharmacists in China. A questionnaire survey, designed as a discrete choice experiment, was sent to 80 individuals. In the questionnaire, different scenarios were constructed on the basis of six attributes- disease prevalence, severity of disease, age of target group, route of administration, individual health benefits, and cost-effectiveness. Individual preferences and choice were regressed against those characteristics. Binary logistic regression model was established to determine the relative importance of the attributes. The results showed that all aspects proved to significantly influence the respondents’ preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuan Yu & Cheng Li & Jin Zhang & Xianzhi Zhang & Min Yu, 2010. "Pharmacists’ preferences and choice of essential drugs: An application of the discrete choice experiment," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(4), pages 1-29, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:4:y:2010:i:4:p:29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/download/4897/4562
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/view/4897
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Heidenreich & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Bruno Flamion & Melissa Ross & Jaein Seo & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 65-74, January.
    2. Debby van Helvoort‐Postulart & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Trudy van der Weijden & Maarten F. von Meyenfeldt & Carmen D. Dirksen, 2009. "Discrete choice experiments for complex health‐care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 903-920, August.
    3. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    4. Ali Darvishi & Reza Goudarzi & Viktoria Habib Zadeh & Mohsen Barouni, 2020. "Cost-benefit Analysis of IUI and IVF based on willingness to pay approach; case study: Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    5. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A binary choice experiment," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Pradnya Naik-Panvelkar & Carol Armour & John Rose & Bandana Saini, 2012. "Patient Preferences for Community Pharmacy Asthma Services," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 961-976, October.
    7. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    9. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    10. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2015. "Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 346-365, October.
    11. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    12. Mooney, Gavin, 2005. "Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-255, January.
    13. Stella Nalukwago Settumba & Marian Shanahan & Willings Botha & Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli & Georgina Mary Chambers, 2019. "Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 103-110, February.
    14. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, IZA Network @ LISER.
    15. S. Capecchi & M. Meleddu & M. Pulina & G. Solinas, 2019. "Mixture models for consumers' preferences in healthcare," Working Paper CRENoS 201901, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    16. Seiritsu Ogura & Wataru Suzuki & Makoto Kawamura & Tamotsu Kadoda, 2006. "Conjoint Analysis to Estimate the Demand for Nicotine Replacement Therapy in Japan," NBER Chapters, in: Health Care Issues in the United States and Japan, pages 229-246, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Poulos, Christine & Yang, Jui-Chen & Levin, Carol & Van Minh, Hoang & Giang, Kim Bao & Nguyen, Diep, 2011. "Mothers' preferences and willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Vinh Long Province, Vietnam," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 226-234, July.
    18. L. Sampietro-Colom & M. Espallargues & E. Rodríguez & M. Comas & J. Alonso & X. Castells & J.L. Pinto, 2008. "Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 554-566, July.
    19. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    20. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:4:y:2010:i:4:p:29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.